I'm more than a little leery of some of these clusters. The Scots Modal and the NW Irish (Niall) Modal I think are fairly well established, and maybe some of the others are, too, but I don't know.

Some of them may be more widespread than their authors imagine. Some of these modals may not be restricted to Scotland or Ireland. That means that where they are found outside of Scotland or Ireland they should not automatically and reflexively be attributed to immigrants from those places.

I'm more than a little leery of some of these clusters. The Scots Modal and the NW Irish (Niall) Modal I think are fairly well established, and maybe some of the others are, too, but I don't know.

Some of them may be more widespread than their authors imagine. Some of these modals may not be restricted to Scotland or Ireland. That means that where they are found outside of Scotland or Ireland they should not automatically and reflexively be attributed to immigrants from those places.

I agree that the modals are typically mis-labeled, being based on the initial (and incomplete) findings. However, it seems like clusters that did have geographic patterns could be useful.

POWELL is likely of Welsh origin (from "ap Howell"). I am the new co-admin for the Wales DNA project, and expect that as more of my R1b1b2 project members do deep clade testing, we will see the majority be L21+. We have a few M222+ men in our project, which completely surprised me. I thought M222+ was only in Ireland and Scotland. Susan

Read whatever you want into it. Interestingly, the SplitsTree graph placed Kehoe, Powell, and two Scandinavians as flanking the M222+ cluster.

Nice work, Vince. I see myself there, but I'll have to check those kit numbers to see who is around me.

I've been in those kinds of diagrams before and have seen them set me in proximity to people who weren't all that close to me and who eventually were even found to belong to a different subclade, just as those Scandinavian guys and Powell, who are all M222-, flank the M222+ group.

They must have some value, but I guess it's probably relative to who and how many are included.

POWELL is likely of Welsh origin (from "ap Howell"). I am the new co-admin for the Wales DNA project, and expect that as more of my R1b1b2 project members do deep clade testing, we will see the majority be L21+. We have a few M222+ men in our project, which completely surprised me. I thought M222+ was only in Ireland and Scotland. Susan

I found seven "Howeles" on the M222+ Project results site. These guys could have originally been "ap Howells".

I also found an M222+ member, "Skaar" , from Norway, nearby the L21+ members who are close to M222+

POWELL is likely of Welsh origin (from "ap Howell"). I am the new co-admin for the Wales DNA project, and expect that as more of my R1b1b2 project members do deep clade testing, we will see the majority be L21+. We have a few M222+ men in our project, which completely surprised me. I thought M222+ was only in Ireland and Scotland. Susan

I found seven "Howeles" on the M222+ Project results site. These guys could have originally been "ap Howells".

I also found an M222+ member, "Skaar" , from Norway, nearby the L21+ members who are close to M222+

thanks, Miles

They are M222-, which means they belong to an entirely different subclade.

One isn't "close to M222" because he has a haplotype that brings him next to some M222 guys on a fluxus diagram. You either are M222+ or not.

Before I tested U106- I was told by several people, some of them very knowledgeable, that I would probably be U106+ because my haplotype is very "Frisian" looking. In fact, as far as Oppenheimer's book is concerned, I have the "Frisian Modal Haplotype."

But that doesn't make me "close to U106." I'm U106-. Different subclade.

POWELL is likely of Welsh origin (from "ap Howell"). I am the new co-admin for the Wales DNA project, and expect that as more of my R1b1b2 project members do deep clade testing, we will see the majority be L21+. We have a few M222+ men in our project, which completely surprised me. I thought M222+ was only in Ireland and Scotland. Susan

I found seven "Howeles" on the M222+ Project results site. These guys could have originally been "ap Howells"....

They are M222-, which means they belong to an entirely different subclade. ...

Umm... I was going to say something about the "Howeles" supporting the Welsh origin hypothesis but the different SNP value dissuaded me... However, if they are really M222-, am I jumping in since I'm L21+ but M222-. "Howell" is Welsh sounding. My "Walsh of the Mountain" (reported) ancestral clan has two possible declared progenitors (who could be father/son or grandfather/grandson). One is Philip, the other is Howell Walsh and they are definitely supposed to be Welsh (frequently called "Philip the Welshman".) Our claim to fame ancestral home was Castle Hoel, aka as Castle Hale.. named after Howell Walsh. They had it great until the Plague and Cromwell got there. http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~walsh/cstlhale.html

POWELL is likely of Welsh origin (from "ap Howell"). I am the new co-admin for the Wales DNA project, and expect that as more of my R1b1b2 project members do deep clade testing, we will see the majority be L21+. We have a few M222+ men in our project, which completely surprised me. I thought M222+ was only in Ireland and Scotland. Susan

I found seven "Howeles" on the M222+ Project results site. These guys could have originally been "ap Howells".

I also found an M222+ member, "Skaar" , from Norway, nearby the L21+ members who are close to M222+

thanks, Miles

They are M222-, which means they belong to an entirely different subclade.

One isn't "close to M222" because he has a haplotype that brings him next to some M222 guys on a fluxus diagram. You either are M222+ or not.

Before I tested U106- I was told by several people, some of them very knowledgeable, that I would probably be U106+ because my haplotype is very "Frisian" looking. In fact, as far as Oppenheimer's book is concerned, I have the "Frisian Modal Haplotype."

But that doesn't make me "close to U106." I'm U106-. Different subclade.

Just going by something Vince T. posted on another forum. He suggested that three other L21+ Project members, and I might have split from the tree just prior to the origin of M222+ because of our close proximity to M222+ on his tree.

They are M222-, which means they belong to an entirely different subclade.

One isn't "close to M222" because he has a haplotype that brings him next to some M222 guys on a fluxus diagram. You either are M222+ or not.

Before I tested U106- I was told by several people, some of them very knowledgeable, that I would probably be U106+ because my haplotype is very "Frisian" looking. In fact, as far as Oppenheimer's book is concerned, I have the "Frisian Modal Haplotype."

But that doesn't make me "close to U106." I'm U106-. Different subclade.[/quote]________________________________________________________________________

Wouldn't U106 be quite different in comparison to L21* then M222+ to L21*. U106 isn't even on the same branch as P312+, where as M222+ is downstream of L21*.

There are M222+ members found on the L21+ Project, so yes, it is a differnt subclade but no where near as different as U106+ is to L21*. Perhaps you should remove the M222+ members from the L21+ Project if they are a different subclade, but I wouldn't. I may be either M222+ or not, but all of us are L21+, and at some point M222+ broke off from L21+.

Since M222+ originated from an L21+ man, I think it may be significant to find those nearest M222+ on the tree. When I compare myself to other L21* members on Ysearch I come up with three Irish guys (Huey, Rock and Traynor) and Montanez (Puerto Rico) with a GD of -17 as my closest matches. When I compare myself to M222+ guys on Ysearch I come up with three Irish guys (Donohoe, Miller and O'Saughnessy) who are also a GD of -17.

Well, just so that it's said, I can't rationally say for certain that I'm on to something, but intuition says there's something there. I have a few ideas, but only experimentation and exploration can say for sure if they'll pan out to anything.

Well, just so that it's said, I can't rationally say for certain that I'm on to something, but intuition says there's something there. I have a few ideas, but only experimentation and exploration can say for sure if they'll pan out to anything.

Hopefully as the project grows, things will resolve further.

You and I each had the idea that M222+ was downstream of L21+ and it turned out to be the case. I always looked at my DYS390=25 and 389ii= 30 and thought it looked to be in between M222+ and the Scots Modal. Plus most of my matches were from Scotland and the north of Ireland. At that time people seemed to have no doubt that M222+ had originated in Irleand, si I got the idea that I (and others like me) might be a "pre-M222+".

Well, you put all that with your nifty tree and I'm going to go with that gut feeling. Yes, M222+ and L21* are different subclades, but for now they are right next to each other, sort of father and son. I think there has to be significance to your findings.

I think with the new FTDNA Deep Clade tests the L21+ Project is bound to grow! Plus, I'm always hoping for a new SNP!

Well, you can end up next to someone on a fluxus diagram without being all that close to his haplotype in reality.

I'm not all that close to my neighbors on Vince's fluxus diagram, and I've been on them before next to people who really are fairly distant from me.

I haven't checked the genetic distance between the M222 group and those who flank them on that diagram. How far off are they?

Even if those Scandinavians were some kind of "pre-M222" (which I strongly doubt), what would that prove? The ancestor they share with the M222+ group could have been an L21+ who lived several thousand years ago on the Continent.

I just took a quick look (all I have time for right now) at the two Norwegians, Nilssen and Igland (8EQYZ, V3228) and their two nearest neighbors in the M222+ group, Blanchard and McKenzie (NUKXT, 4K975) in YSearch.

They aren't all that close, and their haplotypes are distinctly different. I'll take a closer look later, but I suspect fluxus puts people together based on relative proximity rather than absolute proximity. In other words, it groups what it's got.

I'm no expert on using fluxus and interpreting it, but I don't see any great resemblance between the haplotypes of Nilssen and Igland and Blanchard and McKenzie.

Neither McKenzie nor Blanchard has updated his YSearch entry to include all 67 markers. I'll have to write them and ask them to do that. I'm at work and looking at this stuff only on my short breaks, so I don't have time right now to put them all into McGee's Utility and see how they come out. Still Nilssen and Blanchard were 15 off at Blanchard's 63 markers that he currently has in YSearch. That's not close, and the two haplotypes don't appear to share any unique characteristics that I could detect with a quick look.

Interestingly, Nilssen and Igland are only 8 off each other at 67 markers.

Try running Nilssen (8EQYZ) in YSearch. His closest match is Igland ("Berge" V3228) at 8 away. After that there are some at 16 away, none of whom appears to be an M222+ or even an Irishman. The closest person of Irish descent is Bisset, at 17 away, and his haplotype does look like it is probably M222+.

But 17 away is quite distant. It's not close, and Nilssen has an R1b1b2a1b3 (Bailey 7UDT7) who is that close.

I think fluxus takes whatever haplotypes are put into it and groups them. They don't have to be close in reality at all apparently. They just have to be close relative to the other haplotypes that make up the diagram.

I don't think there is anything Irish or British or M222ish about those two Norwegians at all.

You and I each had the idea that M222+ was downstream of L21+ and it turned out to be the case. I always looked at my DYS390=25 and 389ii= 30 and thought it looked to be in between M222+ and the Scots Modal. Plus most of my matches were from Scotland and the north of Ireland. At that time people seemed to have no doubt that M222+ had originated in Irleand, si I got the idea that I (and others like me) might be a "pre-M222+".

Well, you put all that with your nifty tree and I'm going to go with that gut feeling. Yes, M222+ and L21* are different subclades, but for now they are right next to each other, sort of father and son. I think there has to be significance to your findings.

Thanks, Miles

There should be a good method, whether splits tree, fluxus, etc. to see which L21* men are truly the closest to M222+ men. Obviously there once was a L21+ man, and he had a son who was the first M222+. But wouldn't their haploTYPES have been identical, or maybe 1 off? If you have an approx date for the appearance of M222+, calculate the possible mutations since then-- Voila! The "pre M222+" group--descendants of the L21*'s other sons. Sounds easy, doesn't it? LOL :-)

I've been calling Vince's SplitsTree diagram "fluxus." I should have written SplitsTree.

Anyway, the two guys on either side of me on the tree are Gibson (3E6AQ) and Grant (RKCNM).

They are a gd of 20 and 22 from me respectively.

That is what I have been talking about: relative proximity rather than absolute proximity. They aren't close to me at all really, but they flank me on the SplitsTree diagram.

The same is true with respect to Nilssen and Igland and the M222+ group.

As I said before, SplitsTree uses a matrix of MRCA values generated by McGee's utility. It doesn't matter if those MRCA values are in generations or years, it would scale the same.

The biggest question is that MRCA is calculated using mutation rates that are assumed to be constant regardless of lineage, allele score, historical environmental conditions, and so on.

Also, the same MRCA calculations have a very large confidence interval (about 30% plus or minus, apparently). If the MRCA calculates to 3500 years ago, then realistically he could have lived anywhere from 2500 to 4500 years ago.

U106, U152, P312, L21, U198, and so on all happened within a very brief period of time, and their descendant populations appear to have flourished magnificently. So yes, interclade drift happened since the founding family was so young, so large, and experienced very high survival rates.

That's why we need to find and test as many of those older SNPs as possible, because they can be used like filters to screen out the noise of similar haplotypes in brother clades.

The best clusters are those that have gone through a bottle-neck caused by a high extinction rate of cousin lineages. It's one of the reasons that the NW-Irish/Niall modal (M222) stands out so well and looks so distinctive on the graph, whereas the rest are much more ambiguous.

The problem I see is that you have people who look at a SplitsTree diagram like this, say on a web site like dna forums, and they jump to the conclusion that Nilssen and Igland must be "close to M222" and therefore somehow Irish or British. Then in their minds the diagram becomes of a piece with all the other flotsam used to bolster the "out-of-Ireland" argument or the "randy Irish monks" or "British thralls" arguments.

But in reality, Nilssen and Igland aren't really anything like M222 nor do they bear any special relationship to M222 (that we know of anyway).

Now that's not to say L21 in Scandinavia isn't of British provenance. I doubt it, but maybe it is or maybe some of it is, here and there. It could be that some of the Scandinavian L21 is of German provenance, or maybe all of it is homegrown Scandinavian. Time will tell.

I remember when U106 and U152 were brand new. Even though they were overwhelmingly British to begin with, I don't remember all the same sorts of arguments. There were one or two people who tried to argue they originated in Britain, but they didn't get too far. For some reason, perhaps because we have so much Irish L21 and everyone seems to want to relegate the Irish to "aborigine" status, there are many people who like the "L21-is-British/Irish" idea regardless of how the early returns are stacking up.

The problem I see is that you have people who look at a SplitsTree diagram like this, say on a web site like dna forums, and they jump to the conclusion that Nilssen and Igland must be "close to M222" and therefore somehow Irish or British. Then in their minds the diagram becomes of a piece with all the other flotsam used to bolster the "out-of-Ireland" argument or the "randy Irish monks" or "British thralls" arguments.

But in reality, Nilssen and Igland aren't really anything like M222 nor do they bear any special relationship to M222 (that we know of anyway).

Now that's not to say L21 in Scandinavia isn't of British provenance. I doubt it, but maybe it is or maybe some of it is, here and there. It could be that some of the Scandinavian L21 is of German provenance, or maybe all of it is homegrown Scandinavian. Time will tell.

I remember when U106 and U152 were brand new. Even though they were overwhelmingly British to begin with, I don't remember all the same sorts of arguments. There were one or two people who tried to argue they originated in Britain, but they didn't get too far. For some reason, perhaps because we have so much Irish L21 and everyone seems to want to relegate the Irish to "aborigine" status, there are many people who like the "L21-is-British/Irish" idea regardless of how the early returns are stacking up.

I think people are trying to find the relationship between L21* and M222+, which makes perfect sense. Since M222+ is downstream of L21+, the more we find out how present M222+ results relate to present L21+ results, the more we may find out about L21+

There was a time when M222+'s origin in Ireland was accepted as fact, but I think there are very few who would say that now. It seems within weeks of the L21 discovery that M222+'s origin moved to the Continent. I think Alan was the first one I recall moving M222+'s origin to the east. So, now, when people are tying L21* with M222+. I really don't think it is because they are promoting the "out-of-Ireland" argument. I think I know of one person who still holds on to that belief (It is NOT me!!!). Others might, but certainly they wouldn't post it. Just throwing the theory out for discussion can cause one to be called a "jingoist".

It really comes down to trying to find out when and where the split from L21+ to M222+ took place. Age intervals and split-trees may help. Ultimately Germany will be the only accepted answer.

There should be a good method, whether splits tree, fluxus, etc. to see which L21* men are truly the closest to M222+ men. Obviously there once was a L21+ man, and he had a son who was the first M222+. But wouldn't their haploTYPES have been identical, or maybe 1 off? If you have an approx date for the appearance of M222+, calculate the possible mutations since then-- Voila! The "pre M222+" group--descendants of the L21*'s other sons. Sounds easy, doesn't it? LOL :-)

Smarter people than me have looked at Vince's diagrams and are noticing there may be a strong off-modal pattern for some L21* folks at 617 and 406S1 locii that has not been found at all in M222+, so I guess that means we'd be the opposite of "pre M222+".